When people say the "Old" archon with the huskblade and the soul trap...that archon isn't really an old model, is he? I mean, there is a newer one, but the older one was released along with all the current wych and kabal lines wasn't he?

Well, being out of production it's definitely one of the old Archons since he's definitely not current.

True, but I believe the discussion is more original line vs anything after 5th ed, due to the different styles.

Which at no point stops people from referring to the OOP version of the Archon as old, regardless of which version that is.

When people say the "Old" archon with the huskblade and the soul trap...that archon isn't really an old model, is he? I mean, there is a newer one, but the older one was released along with all the current wych and kabal lines wasn't he?

Well, being out of production it's definitely one of the old Archons since he's definitely not current.

True, but I believe the discussion is more original line vs anything after 5th ed, due to the different styles.

Which at no point stops people from referring to the OOP version of the Archon as old, regardless of which version that is.

Yes, and I wasn't arguing that. It is OOP and it is old. I was just trying to clarify on what the discussion is about. It's not old in the sense of age, but old in that it's not the current model.

I was trying to clarify that the conversation is about the original style vs the current style. 2nd+3rd ed vs 5th onwards.

Honestly, I don't care how people want to refer to the different ranges. It's semantics that just adds more layers of confusion. I was trying to get to the heart of it to stop confusion and help the conversation move forwards more productively so it didn't veer off track into a conversation that mirrors RAW vs RAI... but with model denominations.

--------------------------------Back on topic

I think I have managed to figure out why it is I prefer the old model range and the new range irked me upon its release. I loved the old aesthetic, despite it being it being big and clunky. The chunkiness was just an unfortunate side effect of the sculpting quality at the time, making it difficult to make most models back then beautiful compared to modern day standards.

The thing that annoyed me was the level in which they were revamped. To this day I still think of an Agoniser as a big sword-fingered glove. Yes, the codex says that they come in all shapes and sizes, but it only really provides a whip. I made a model back in 5th that had a big hand to hark back to the old agonisers.

I wanted a revamp of the old models. I wanted many things to stay similar but look new. The change to raiders/ravagers was the biggest in my opinion. I loved the old, jagged, plated look and I think that they could've been redesigned to be sleeker and more nible without having to be the smooth plated pleasure barges.

I wanted resculpts that were still familiar to me but felt like I got a whole new army. That is why (I think) I love the old models more. They're the army I fell in love with. Not the new (very pretty, but different) models the DE have now. They just feel different.

I wished that I would feel different with time but I don't. I do love the new models, but they don't embody the DE in the way I'd like.

Many people will disagree, and that's fine. I just wanted to share some insights into why I, personally, love the old range more.